> What I meant to say is that there is a difference between
> bona fide artists who have genuine skills - yes it is all
> about human skills and abilities to transform objects, rather
> than objects themselves - and charlatans who hide behind
> nihilism, criticism, and convention breaking simply because
> they do not have the skill and the ability to do actual art.
I know there's a lot of controversy about the whole "post-studio" movement, but if you're labelling Martin Creed as a charlatan who is hiding behind nihilism simply because he does not have the skill and ability to do actual art, then we're back to the beginning: your definition of 'actual art' doesn't jive with mine; I'm not sure 'object transformation' (for instance) would appear in my definition of art, except perhaps as a clarification on some kinds of endeavor; in others, I feel it's enough just to draw attention to the object (or subject, for that matter).
In this specific case, I'd go so far to say that I'd be thrilled to have some of Mr. Creed's work hang on my wall. Or at least own a book of some of his work.
/jordan